Table of Contents. Executive Summary. 3. Structural System Overview 4. Loads.. 5. Seismic Analysis Wind Analysis. 8

Transcription

1 Brian M. Barna Structural Option Pennsylvania Judicial Center Harrisburg, PA Technical Report #3 Lateral System Analysis Faculty Consultant: Dr. Thomas Boothby

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary. 3 Structural System Overview 4 Loads.. 5 Seismic Analysis... 6 Wind Analysis. 8 Lateral Force Distribution. 9 Torsion. 10 Drift Overturning Moment.. 13 Strength Check Conclusions. 16 Appendix A Hand Calculations and Spreadsheets Seismic Calculations. 17 Wind Calculations Lateral System Details.. 26 Lateral Force Distribution. 28 Appendix B RAM Structural System Output Seismic Story Shear. 33 Seismic Period.. 35 Wind Story Shear.. 36 Drift Analysis.. 41 Page 2 of 45

3 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to perform a detailed analysis of the lateral system for the Pennsylvania Judicial Center. This is a nine-story, 425,000 square foot building project currently under construction in Harrisburg, PA. This $95 million building will house the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System, and features courtrooms, conference rooms, and offices. The Pennsylvania Judicial Center has a steel frame with composite floor slabs. The building resists lateral loads using concentrically braced frames between the floor slabs, which act as rigid diaphragms. The frames use stiffness in the plane of the lateral load and act similar to a truss to transfer the loads to the columns, which then transfer the loads to the foundation below. A three-dimensional computer model created using RAM Structural System was a significant tool that aided the both the determination and the distribution of the lateral loads. As expected for Harrisburg, not an area of high seismicity, wind was the controlling force for the design. The base shear was calculated to be 634k, which is within 1% error of the base shear calculated by the design professional (640k). RAM also calculated the distribution of the shear to the frames. These results were compared to a distribution done based on relative stiffness. The relative stiffnesses were found using RAM Advanse by putting a unit load at the top of one-floor representative frame for each building frame and comparing the deflections. Even though this was intended to provide a rough estimate, most of the values this method yielded were actually quite close to the RAM Structural System analysis, giving confidence that the distribution was reasonably accurate. A detailed analysis on the torsional forces was performed. It was found that torsional shear could be as high as one-third of the direct shear on a frame story but was typically on the order of 5-10%. Therefore, torsion caused by accidental eccentricity of the wind force should be included in frame design. A check on building drift under design loading was performed using RAM Structural System. The frame was found to easily meet the H/400 drift requirement, as the maximum drift the building will experience is 2.06 compared to a drift limit of 4.2. Foundation design was also a consideration in this report, as the footings beneath the frames had to be able to resist moments in addition to gravity loads. The overall overturning moments that the building must resist are 41,900 ft-lbs in the E-W direction and 33,200 ft-lbs in the N-S direction. However, most of the stress transferred to the foundations will be axial rather than flexural since the braces transfer most of the lateral load into the column axis. Finally, a strength check was performed on a typical nine story braced frame under design wind loading. Performed using the RAM Advanse computer software, all of the members passed the code check. Page 3 of 45

4 Structural System Overview Floor system: The typical floor is supported by a composite steel and concrete system. The concrete is lightweight (110 pcf dry unit weight) and has a minimum 28-day strength of 4000 psi. There is 3½ of concrete above a 3 18-gage galvanized composite cellular metal deck, for a total slab depth of 6½. Typical reinforcement is welded wire fabric, 6x6-W2.9xW2.9. The slab is supported by steel beams with typical sizes ranging from W16x36 to W24x68. Typical spans run as long as 42 feet, and the widest spacing between beams is ten feet. The typical spacing between beams is also approximately ten feet. Composite action is enforced by ¾ diameter shear studs with 5½ length. Roof system: The flat roof system is identical to the typical 6½ concrete slab floor system. The sloped monitor roof on the ninth-floor tower has a 3 20-gage galvanized metal deck. The roof is supported by sloped beams ranging from W8x10 to W12x19, with spans no longer than 25 feet and a 9 maximum spacing. The monitor above the main atrium features the same deck, but it is supported by bent W30x90 beams spanning 56 and spaced at ten feet o.c. Lateral system: The structure is laterally supported by concentrically braced steel frames in both the N-S and E-W directions. These frames consist of the wide flange columns, wide flange beams at each story and two HSS (hollow structural section) diagonal braces between each story. The geometry of the diagonal members varies, and this has an impact on their relative stiffnesses. This lateral system features no moment connections, and relies on concrete floor and roof slabs to act as rigid diaphragms and to distribute the lateral loads accordingly. Foundation: The slab on grade concrete is normal-weight (145 pcf dry unit weight) and has minimum 28-day strength of 5000 psi. The slab on grade is fiber-reinforced at not less than 1.5 lb/yd 3 in some areas and is reinforced with #3 18 c/c in the rest of the slab. Typical slab thicknesses are 5 with 6 drainage fill and 8 with 8 drainage fill. Column loads of up to 1,000 kips are supported using concrete piers with diameter of up to eight feet end bearing on rock. Larger column loads are supported by socketed caissons with diameters up to 4.5 feet with up to 18 depth. The piers will bear on grey limey shale bedrock with an allowable bearing stress of 30 ksf. The median core depth to reach bedrock was 9.5 feet, and bedrock depth is relatively uniform throughout the site. The concrete basement foundation walls will be supported by continuous wall footings. Columns: The columns are ASTM A992 Grade 50 wide flange steel shapes laid out in a mostly rectangular grid. In this system the columns are acting as the primary gravity resistance members. The columns that are attached as braced frames are also the main lateral force resisting members. The braces between columns are ASTM A500 Grade B HSS shapes ranging in size from 8 8 1/2 to /8. The largest column is a W14x550, though most of the columns are on the order of 300 lb/ft at the ground floor. Page 4 of 45

5 Loads Floor Live Loads: Load Area Building Design Load Minimum Load, ASCE 7-05 Corridors 125 psf 100 psf, first floor 80 psf, all other floors Offices 125 psf 50 psf Courtrooms 60 psf + 20 psf partition 60 psf, if seats are fixed Lobbies and Stairs 125 psf 100 psf Storage Rooms 125 psf 125 psf for light storage (warehouse) Archive Storage Room 250 psf 250 psf for heavy storage (warehouse) Conference Center 125 psf 100 psf (assembly area) Library (Stacks) 150 psf 150 psf Cafeteria 100 psf 100 psf (assembly area) Mechanical Rooms (fans only) 125 psf n/a Mechanical Penthouse 250 psf n/a Exterior Plaza 100 psf 100 psf (assembly area) fire vehicle access area 300 psf n/a Parking Garage 100 psf 40 psf Loading Dock 250 psf n/a Roof Live Loads: Item Design Value Code Basis Roof Live Load 20 psf min ASCE 7-05 Ground Snow Load (Pg) 30 psf IBC Figure Flat-roof Snow Load (Pf) 21 psf + drift IBC Section Snow Exposure Factor (Ce) 1.0 IBC Table Snow Importance Factor (I) 1.0 IBC Table Thermal Factor (Cf) 1.0 IBC Table Rainwater Ponding Load 30 psf (avg. of 6 ) n/a Dead Loads: Item Concrete Slab, Typical Floor Superimposed Dead Loads Mechanical, Electrical, Sprinkler Ceiling Finishes Floor Finishes Steel Structure Other Dead Loads Design Value 50 psf 20 psf 5 psf 5 psf Varies Where applicable Page 5 of 45

6 Seismic Analysis Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is not considered a high-risk area for seismic activity. However, due to an increased emphasis on seismic design in the new codes, seismic loads must be considered for almost every new structure constructed in the United States. For the hand calculations, the equivalent lateral force method was deemed appropriate and sufficient for a seismic analysis for this area. The seismic coefficients used in the design were provided in the construction documents, and were shown to be in line with the ASCE The only discrepancy was that the new code suggests a value of 3.25 for R and C d, rather than 3, but the coefficients in the design of this report were made to match those used in the building design an attempt to keep my analysis in line with the design professional s as much as possible. Seismic weight typically includes dead load only, but there are code provisions to include percentages of certain live loads. This was accounted for with a relatively conservative uniform dead load, 100 psf. I also added an exterior wall load of 45 pounds per square foot of wall area. Index force analysis, the simplest possible seismic analysis, was performed to determine if my assumptions were reasonable. The result was a base shear of 407k, which is at least on the same order of magnitude as the design base shear of 640k. The spreadsheet can be found on page 18 of this report. When attempting to find seismic forces using the equivalent lateral force method, the result was a base shear of 1100k, which was too far away from the design base shear. Since all of the same coefficients were used as those of the design professional, the two possibilities for the discrepancy were weight and building period. I ruled out weight since the difference in base shears was so great, it would require a radically different weight to approach the same value. The approximate period equation in the code was used to obtain a period T of 0.89s in the initial calculation, but a provision was found enabling the period to be increased to up to 1.51s. At this longer period, I calculated the base shear to be 655k, almost exactly equal to the design value. The values obtained by the RAM Structural System analysis are different still. The base shear was found to be 453k, with periods ranging from 3.12s for the first mode to 0.47s for the ninth mode. Clearly, the key to finding the correct base shear is to get an accurate representation of the period, which is not easy to do. Which base shear value should be the one to trust? If one has faith in the computer model, when earthquake loads are compared to wind loads, wind clearly controls. This is what was expected for this building in an area of low seismicity. Even if the designer was to be conservative and use the hand calculation, that base shear is almost identical to that of wind; therefore, it is a moot point from design in this case. Note: In each method, the base shear was calculated without deduction mass for slab penetrations, which is slightly conservative. Page 6 of 45

7 Seismic Coefficients: Item Design Value Code Basis Hazard Exposure Group I IBC Section Performance Category B IBC Table Importance Factor (I) 1.0 IBC Table Spectral Acceleration for Short 0.21g IBC Figure 1615 (1) Periods (Ss) Spectral Acceleration for a One 0.064g IBC Figure 1615 (2) Second Period (S 1 ) Damped Design Spectral 0.168g IBC Section Response Acceleration at Short Periods (S DS ) Damped Design Spectral 0.073g IBC Section Response Acceleration at Short Periods (S D1 ) Seismic Response Coeff. (Cs) IBC Section Site Class C (very dense soil) IBC Table Basic Structural System Building Frames IBC Table Seismic Resisting System Concentric Braced IBC Table Frames Response Modification Factor 3.0 IBC Table (R) Deflection Modification Factor 3.0 IBC Table (Cd) Analysis Procedure Utilized Equivalent Lateral Force Design Base Shear 640k Page 7 of 45

8 Wind Analysis Since seismic is usually not a driving factor in this building s region, it will probably be the wind force that controls the design of the lateral resistance system. Therefore, a relatively rigorous wind calculation would be an essential endeavor. For this report, Method 2 will be used to calculate wind pressures on the main wind-force resisting system. To perform a detailed wind design for a building, a components and cladding analysis is necessary. However, for the purpose of getting a wind load on the overall building for this report, a MWFRS analysis is sufficient. The first step in the wind calculations was to determine all of the wind coefficients; this work is shown on pages An analysis was conducted in each of the two principal directions. The windward and leeward pressures are the essential values for the overall building system. Roof pressure is relatively unimportant for this building, since the uplift will be easily resisted by the heavy, primarily flat roof slab. Side wall pressures may be important to component design or deflection criteria, but for overall system design, they will not control and can be ignored. A positive pressure on the windward building face and a negative pressure on the leeward face will both occur in the same direction; therefore, their effects can be considered cumulative when discussing overall building criteria such as base shear. For 90 MPH wind acting on the north or south face, the building experiences a 665k windward force and a 600k leeward force. The east and west faces, which have a smaller surface area normal to the wind, would experience a 577k windward force and a 448k leeward force. These hand calculations provide an excellent ground for comparison to the values given by the RAM Structural System model of the building. In the north-south direction, RAM calculated a total base shear for the building of 634k, which differs from the handcalculated value for windward force by just 3%. The east-west RAM base shear was 569k, a difference of less than 2% from the hand calculations. A possible small source of error in the RAM model is that the sloped roofs were not modeled; however, the surface area neglected is fairly small and so is the effect on total building shear. The agreement between the computer model and hand calculations gives great confidence in the validity of all of the calculations. Page 8 of 45

9 Lateral Force Distribution The primary lateral force resistance is achieved using concentric braced frames. All of the frames in this system safely transfer the forces using the same concepts; however, minor differences in geometry can have a large impact on the frame s stiffness and, therefore, its contribution to lateral force resistance. Using RAM Structural System, a very detailed distribution analysis was performed. All of the frames in the computer model feature the same geometry, member sections, and location as the frames designed in the building. The columns and beams that were not part of the frame were not necessarily all the same as those in the construction documents; they were optimized in the RAM model to work. However, since we are assuming that the frames take 100% of the lateral resistance; this is a moot point for this analysis. RAM Structural System calculated all of the wind and seismic load cases, along with their combinations, and determined their effects on the building. The IBC 2003 load cases were used. It was determined that wind controlled in both orthogonal directions; again, this is a result that was expected. RAM calculated the shear at each floor; the base shears in the N-S direction and E-W direction are 634k and 569k, respectively. RAM also distributed the forces to each frame; see the spreadsheet on page 28 for load distribution. Since all floors are assumed to act as rigid diaphragms, the forces are assumed to be distributed according to relative stiffness. My analysis of the lateral system also included constructing models of typical frame bays in RAM Advanse and subjecting the frames to a unit force to find the relative deflections. The inverses of these deflections will then provide the relative stiffnesses of the frames. This method is, of course, an approximation, but it is a reasonably accurate analysis to test that the data that is produced in RAM is logical. For the RAM Advanse analysis, five typical types of frames were considered. For most frames, the patterns usually repeat from the ground floor to the roof. The spreadsheets on pages show how the lateral loads are divided by the frames. If one compares that distribution to the one from RAM, one can see that the load percentages in each analysis are quite similar. This gives confidence that both analyses have a reasonable degree of accuracy, with the RAM Structural System data being the numbers that would be used because RAM more closely models the actual system. Due to a relatively symmetrical geometry, one would not expect torsion to be a critical design issue. However, since some frames are located on the exterior of a relatively large building footprint, torsion will create some force on the lateral system. Therefore, torsional factors were not considered in either distribution analysis, but are calculated in the Torsion section of this report. Page 9 of 45

10 Torsion In addition to the lateral forces that the eccentrically braced frames are designed to withstand, if the lateral force is eccentric it can torque the frames and put extra burden on them. Torsional effects should be always calculated for lateral systems, and their contribution to the load can range from negligible to substantial. The symmetry of the Pennsylvania Judicial Center is a favorable case to limit torsion. For wind load, torsion increases as the eccentricity between the center of mass and the geometrical center increases; this eccentricity is very small for this structure. As a matter of fact, on every floor the distance between the mass and geometric centers was less than 5% of the building length; therefore, an accidental eccentricity of 5% was assumed on each floor. However, since some of the building frames are located far from center, torsion could still have some impact on the system. The analysis used the relative stiffnesses calculated based on the deflections of representative frames under unit loads. This was proven in the Lateral Distribution section to be a reasonably accurate assumption. The shear forces came from the RAM data since that is the most accurate data available. Torsional shear was calculated using the following equation: Torsion = H S e K SN C N (K SN C N 2 ) where H S = story shear, K SN = relative stiffness, C N = distance to frame After calculating the numbers, it became evident that torsion has a relatively strong impact on the frame design. Torsional shear was as much as a third of the direct shear on some frames, but for most frames it was between 5-10%. The frames that ran along the short dimension of the building had approximately three times the torsional shear as those running parallel to the long dimension; since some of the E-W frames are on the exterior wall farthest from the center, this makes sense. The absolute value of the torsional shear of each frame should be added to the direct shear of each frame, and this force is what the frame needs to be able to resist. Page 10 of 45

11 Page 11 of 45

12 Drift For serviceability considerations and building inhabitant comfort, building deflections should be limited as much as possible. As the total stiffness of the lateral system increases, building drift will decrease. Unless there are special considerations for a building, the industry standard is to design the building so that the maximum deflection is equal to 1/400 th of the building height. Since the RAM analysis only considers to the top of the roof slab, we will compare the drift at that level to the height at the top of the roof slab. Deflection will be limited to max = ( /ft) / 400 = 4.2. A benefit of using computer-modeling software, such as the RAM Structural System program used for this report, is that the computer is able to take what is a relatively complicated calculation for drift, and perform it for all possible load cases almost instantly. See spreadsheet in Appendix B for maximum drift in each direction for each load case. Thanks to this detailed analysis that a computer can effortlessly perform, one can easily see that in the E-W direction, deflection is controlled by wind ( y = 2.06 ) while in the N-S direction, deflection is controlled by seismic forces ( x = 1.99 ). This second result is a bit surprising, since all other analyses conducted so far have been controlled by wind design. It is likely that, without the computer software, a designer would not feel that it would be time-effective to do a drift analysis for seismic if wind was already found to control. However, the worst-case deflections in each direction are less than half of the maximum, so the building easily meets the drift criterion as designed. The table below shows the drift, by story, of the controlling load case. In both the in-plane and out-of-plane drift, one can see by the increasing change in deflection that a gradient is forming. In the E-W direction, this pattern is disrupted only at the top of the building, where the building s area significantly decreases. The roof tops off on half the building at level 6, which is why there is a large jump in change in drift at floor level 7. Rotation in the Z-direction increases relatively steadily from the bottom to the top. Story Drift (Wind in E-W direction): Story E-W Drift (in) N-S Drift (in) Ө z (radians) PH 2.09 (+0.24) 0.57 (+0.10) (+0.26) 0.47 (+0.10) (+0.29) 0.37 (+0.09) (+0.25) 0.28 (+0.16) (+0.22) 0.12 (+0.04) (+0.21) 0.08 (+0.03) (+0.20) 0.05 (+0.02) (+0.17) 0.03 (+0.01) Page 12 of 45

13 Overturning Moment The overturning moment was calculated as simply the sums of the concentrated forces on each story multiplied by the height above ground level for each story. The forces using were found using the change in shear between floors from the output from RAM Structural System. Obviously, the shear is additive as the loads carry down to the ground floor, so the amount that you add on each floor is the force on that floor. The overall overturning moment was calculated to be 41,900 ft-lbs in the eastwest direction and 33,200 ft-lbs in the north-south direction. This was a slightly surprising result since the surface area for the wind to act on is much greater on the north and south face. However, when the front part of the building is capped off by a roof on the sixth floor, there is more surface area for the east-west faces than the north-south faces. Since these floors are the highest, they will have the greatest impact on the moment at the base, so this result is logical. The spreadsheet on page 14 shows exactly this; even though there is more total force going N-S, more of the force is higher above ground going E-W. The overturning moments of the individual frames in the spreadsheet are misleading. The spreadsheet calculations would be applicable only to a shear wall that acts autonomously from the rest of the building system. Therefore, the foundations will not be expected to resist the entire OTMs for the frames calculated in the spreadsheet, which is a good thing because the moments range from 2600 to over 14,000 ft-lbs. Instead, when the loads are transferred to the concentrically braced frames by the rigid diaphragm, each braced frame acts like a truss. The loads are converted into axial load by the intermediate members and transferred into the columns. The columns can handle axial compression load much better than bending load, and this is certainly true for the foundations as well. The concrete foundations perform best under compressive forces, and for this project, the piles and caissons bear on rock with allowable bearing stress of 30 ksf. Page 13 of 45

14 Page 14 of 45

15 Strength Check A strength check was performed on a nine story braced frame located on grid coordinates 16/P-T. This analysis was performed using RAM Advanse, using all of the section shapes designed by the professional. In this analysis, all of the columns, beams, and diagonal braces passed the code check. One benefit of using computer modeling is that stresses on all of the members can be easily found. The maximum stress ratio for a member under design wind loading is approximately The stresses on the frame are primarily axial, which is typical for a truss-like system. The axial stress distribution of the frame is shown below. Page 15 of 45

16 Conclusions The following conclusions can be made based on calculations performed on the lateral system of the Pennsylvania Judicial Center: Wind force controls over seismic force in the design of lateral loads. For a nine-story building in an area of low seismicity, this is not a surprising result. Since the concrete slabs are assumed to act as rigid diaphragms, lateral loads will be distributed due to relative stiffness. Even a simple calculation to estimate the relative stiffness of frames can provide a reasonably accurate distribution. Based on the building s large footprint and frames located at the corners of the building, torsion will be a relatively significant factor. It should not be ignored; it should be calculated and added to the force analysis. Drift under maximum design loads is approximately half of the design goal of 1/400 th of the height. Even though wind loads control base shear, seismic forces control the building s maximum deflection in the north-south direction. Therefore, all load cases and combinations should be considered for drift when it is practical to do so. Based on an analysis that considers only the wind loads acting on the building, an overturning moment of 41,900 ft-lbs. However, not all of this moment will be transferred to the footing; based on how the concentric braced frame system works, a majority of the lateral load is transferred to the columns in the form of compressive axial force. A typical frame was checked for strength and was found to meet requirements. Page 16 of 45

17 Seismic Calculations Page 17 of 45

18 Page 18 of 45

19 Page 19 of 45

20 Page 20 of 45

21 Seismic Load Distribution Equivalent Lateral Frame Period T = Approximate Period Ta V = 1100k k = 1.20 Level Weight Story Height h h^k Wx*hx^k Cvx Fx penthouse/roof Sum Period T = Max Cu*Ta V = 650k k = 1.50 Level Weight Story Height h h^k Wx*hx^k Cvx Fx penthouse/roof Sum Page 21 of 45

22 Wind Calculations Page 22 of 45

23 Page 23 of 45

24 Page 24 of 45

25 Wind Pressures Windward Wall Pressures (MWFRS) Height Kd qz P (short dir) P (long dir) 0-15' Leeward Wall Pressures (MWFRS) L/B< L/B= L/B> Side Wall Pressure (MWFRS) P= Long direction: 665k windward + 600k leeward = 1265k Short direction: 577k windward + 448k leeward = 1025k Page 25 of 45

26 Lateral System Details Page 26 of 45

27 Page 27 of 45

28 Lateral Force Distribution Page 28 of 45

29 Page 29 of 45

30 Lateral Distribution of Loads East-West Direction Percent of Load Distributed to Frame, by floor Frame Detail 1/Defl penthouse/roof J/16-17 C % 38.4% 38.4% 38.4% 38.4% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% T/16-17 C % 38.4% 38.4% 38.4% 38.4% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% E/9-10 E % 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% X/9-10 E % 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% E/6-7 E % 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% X/6-7 E % 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% North-South Direction Percent of Load Distributed to Frame, by floor Frame Detail 1/Defl penthouse/roof 17/J-N B* % 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 32.7% 32.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16/P-T A % 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 24.8% 67.3% 67.3% 50.0% 50.0% 10/E-F C % 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10/W-X C % 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 24.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6/E-G D % 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6/V-X D % 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% *Detail B for 1st-8th floor, then Detail A up to roof Page 30 of 45

31 Seismic Load Distribution on Braced Frames Period T = Approximate Period Ta V = 1100k k = 1.20 Approximate Load on Each Frame Story, kips Frame Detail 1/Defl penthouse/roof Total Load J/16-17 C T/16-17 C E/9-10 E X/9-10 E E/6-7 E X/6-7 E North-South Direction Approximate Load on Each Frame Story, kips Frame Detail 1/Defl penthouse/roof Total Load 17/J-N B* /P-T A /E-F C /W-X C /E-G D /V-X D *Detail B for 1st-8th floor, then Detail A up to roof Page 31 of 45

32 Seismic Load Distribution on Braced Frames Period T = Max Cu*Ta V = 650k k = 1.50 Approximate Load on Each Frame Story, kips Frame Detail 1/Defl penthouse/roof Total Load J/16-17 C T/16-17 C E/9-10 E X/9-10 E E/6-7 E X/6-7 E North-South Direction Approximate Load on Each Frame Story, kips Frame Detail 1/Defl penthouse/roof Total Load 17/J-N B* /P-T A /E-F C /W-X C /E-G D /V-X D *Detail B for 1st-8th floor, then Detail A up to roof Page 32 of 45

33 Wind Load Distribution on Braced Frames Windward load only East-West Direction - Total Load: 577k Approximate Load on Each Frame Story, kips Total Load Frame Detail 1/Defl penthouse/roof J/16-17 C T/16-17 C E/9-10 E X/9-10 E E/6-7 E X/6-7 E North-South Direction - Total Load: 665k Approximate Load on Each Frame Story, kips Total Load Frame Detail 1/Defl penthouse/roof 17/J-N B* /P-T A /E-F C /W-X C /E-G D /V-X D *Detail B for 1st-8th floor, then Detail A up to roof Page 33 of 45

34 Building Story Shears RAM Frame v10.0 DataBase: whole building 11/21/06 08:51:53 CRITERIA: Rigid End Zones: Ignore Effects Member Force Output: At Face of Joint P-Delta: Yes Scale Factor: 1.00 Diaphragm: Rigid Ground Level: Base Wall Mesh Criteria : Max. Allowed Distance between Nodes (ft) : 8.00 Load Case: E1 E EQ_IBC03_X_+E_F Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: E2 E EQ_IBC03_X_-E_F Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: E3 E EQ_IBC03_Y_+E_F Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor

35 Building Story Shears RAM Frame v10.0 Page 2/2 DataBase: whole building 11/21/06 08:51:53 5th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: E4 E EQ_IBC03_Y_-E_F Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor

36 Periods and Modes RAM Frame v10.0 DataBase: whole building 11/21/06 08:51:53 CRITERIA: Rigid End Zones: Ignore Effects P-Delta: Yes Scale Factor: 1.00 Diaphragm: Rigid Ground Level: Base Wall Mesh Criteria : Max. Allowed Distance between Nodes (ft) : 8.00 FREQUENCIES AND PERIODS: Mode Period Frequency Frequency sec Hz rad/sec MODAL PARTICIPATION FACTORS: Mode X-Dir Y-Dir Rotation MODAL DIRECTION FACTORS: Mode X-Dir Y-Dir Rotation MODAL EFFECTIVE MASS FACTORS: Mode X-Dir Y-Dir Rotation %Mass %SumM %Mass %SumM %Mass %SumM

37 Building Story Shears RAM Frame v10.0 DataBase: whole building 11/19/06 12:32:21 CRITERIA: Rigid End Zones: Ignore Effects Member Force Output: At Face of Joint P-Delta: Yes Scale Factor: 1.00 Diaphragm: Rigid Ground Level: Base Wall Mesh Criteria : Max. Allowed Distance between Nodes (ft) : 8.00 Load Case: W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor

38 Frame Story Shears RAM Frame v10.0 DataBase: whole building 11/19/06 12:32:21 CRITERIA: Rigid End Zones: Ignore Effects Member Force Output: At Face of Joint P-Delta: Yes Scale Factor: 1.00 Diaphragm: Rigid Ground Level: Base Wall Mesh Criteria : Max. Allowed Distance between Nodes (ft) : 8.00 Frame #0 Load Case: W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips 2nd floor st floor Load Case: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips 2nd floor st floor Frame #1 Load Case: W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor

39 Frame Story Shears RAM Frame v10.0 Page 2/4 DataBase: whole building 11/19/06 12:32:21 8th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Frame #2 Load Case: W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips penthouse th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Frame #3 Load Case: W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips

40 Frame Story Shears RAM Frame v10.0 Page 3/4 DataBase: whole building 11/19/06 12:32:21 6th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips 6th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Frame #4 Load Case: W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips 6th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips 6th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Frame #5 Load Case: W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips

41 Frame Story Shears RAM Frame v10.0 Page 4/4 DataBase: whole building 11/19/06 12:32:21 6th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips 6th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Frame #6 Load Case: W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips 6th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor Load Case: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y Level Shear-X Change-X Shear-Y Change-Y kips kips kips kips 6th floor th floor th floor rd floor nd floor st floor

42 Story Displacements RAM Frame v10.0 DataBase: whole building 11/20/06 23:03:46 Building Code: IBC CRITERIA: Rigid End Zones: Ignore Effects Member Force Output: At Face of Joint P-Delta: Yes Scale Factor: 1.00 Diaphragm: Rigid Ground Level: Base Wall Mesh Criteria : Max. Allowed Distance between Nodes (ft) : 8.00 LOAD CASE DEFINITIONS: D DeadLoad RAMUSER Lp PosLiveLoad RAMUSER W1 W Wind_IBC03_1_X W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y W3 W Wind_IBC03_2_X+E W4 W Wind_IBC03_2_X-E W5 W Wind_IBC03_2_Y+E W6 W Wind_IBC03_2_Y-E W7 W Wind_IBC03_3_X+Y W8 W Wind_IBC03_3_X-Y W9 W Wind_IBC03_4_X+Y_CW W10 W Wind_IBC03_4_X+Y_CCW W11 W Wind_IBC03_4_X-Y_CW W12 W Wind_IBC03_4_X-Y_CCW E1 E EQ_IBC03_X_+E_F E2 E EQ_IBC03_X_-E_F E3 E EQ_IBC03_Y_+E_F E4 E EQ_IBC03_Y_-E_F Level: penthouse Center of Mass (ft): (127.36, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad D Lp W W W W W W W W W W W

43 Story Displacements RAM Frame v10.0 Page 2/6 DataBase: whole building 11/20/06 23:03:46 Building Code: IBC W E E E E Level: 9th floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.36, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad D Lp W W W W W W W W W W W W E E E E Level: 8th floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.36, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad D Lp W W W W W W W W W W

44 Story Displacements RAM Frame v10.0 DataBase: whole building 11/23/06 23:45:56 Building Code: IBC CRITERIA: Rigid End Zones: Ignore Effects Member Force Output: At Face of Joint P-Delta: Yes Scale Factor: 1.00 Diaphragm: Rigid Ground Level: Base Wall Mesh Criteria : Max. Allowed Distance between Nodes (ft) : 8.00 LOAD CASE DEFINITIONS: W2 W Wind_IBC03_1_Y E2 E EQ_IBC03_X_-E_F Level: penthouse Center of Mass (ft): (127.36, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E Level: 9th floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.36, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E Level: 8th floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.36, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E Level: 7th floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.36, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E Level: 6th floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.35, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad

45 Story Displacements RAM Frame v10.0 Page 2/2 DataBase: whole building 11/23/06 23:45:56 Building Code: IBC W E Level: 5th floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.35, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E Level: 4th floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.35, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E Level: 3rd floor Center of Mass (ft): (127.35, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E Level: 2nd floor Center of Mass (ft): (128.53, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E Level: 1st floor Center of Mass (ft): (128.53, ) LdC Disp X Disp Y Theta Z in in rad W E